Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
the debt ceiling. if republicans had gone into this issue and said they would not raise the debt ceiling unless they got cuts, there would have lost that the raid at the end. big loss that debate. john boehner and paul rand did a great job together. you cannot govern from that office, you but you have to be very careful about high-profile last-minute negotiations. i've worked in the white house and three administrations. the president has a tremendous institutional advantage in these kinds of fights. what republicans have to do is avoid these fights, the straps that they are laying. provide an alternative through passing legislation, just to show this is how they would govern if they had the powers of the presidency and the senate. and be careful. there are some rough edges. host: some are not strategy as far as moving the debt ceiling ahead. guest: if they had gone ahead with it, it would have been politically cataclysmic. it was the worst percival -- worst possible ground to make their point. president obama 1. i think it's absolutely crucial for the future of the country that you cann
the 2011 debt ceiling disaster, and it is $1.7 trillion in cuts. there is not a dime of new revenue there. here is the chart when you add the $737 billion in new revenue agreed to during the fiscal cliff deal. republicans are winning the battle, wouldn't you say, when it comes to balancing? over two-thirds of deficit reduction has come from cuts to domestic programs, and it's not exactly fair. but now the house progressive caucus has come out with what they call the balancing act. it's a common-sense plan to reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes and cutting wasteful defense spending. here is the chart of the plan. there is $1.7 trillion in new revenue. the $1.7 trillion in spending cuts is still there. this looks like a much fairer chart than the current system, don't you think? and it's estimated to reduce the deficit by $3.3 trillion. remember, we're trying to hit $4 trillion. so we're getting closer. the plan ends tax loopholes for yachts and for jets. it reduces the corporate meal and entertainment deduction to 25%. you can't write off the whole dinner anymore. it ends fossil fu
the debt ceiling in 2011. >> but they now say it was the president who is responsible. >> exactly. they voted for this. >> and paul ryan runs a marathon in less than one hour. >> i thought it was like 20 minutes. he's superman. this is what they wanted. >> of course. congressman, here is another apparent contradiction you might like to clear up for us. on the one hand, you have eric cantor out there giving a speech on making life work. he sounds like tony robbins or something. he's trying to sell yet another iteration of the republican party, but when you strip away the soft smile and the cadence, he'd happily slash every one of those programs that you just went through, wouldn't he? >> oh, absolutely. eric cantor despite all of the covering in the near is definitely proposing budgets that are hostile to middle and low income people. and particularly to vulnerable people, but not only that, you know, programs like s.n.a.p. actually give people money they can spend at the store that allows the store to hire people. eventually the programs they cut will hurt the people who are emplo
. the guy who helped craft the debt ceiling plan. when he puts out that budget that is the document republicans have to run on the next two years because it has severe spending cuts on the domestic side because they have to balance the budget in ten years, a mighty task because they don't want to raise taxes. >> he has no interest in the sheer grind of campaigning. it's hard to see him having what it takes to run for president in 2016. is that even in his mind? is that a possibility for him? >> i don't think he's ever rule it out having been the veep last time and having national statutostature and i do think you have to wapt badly and willing to go for two years that state to state, talking to folks at the grassroots and i don't think he really likes that. likes the idea of spending some time with his family and work the halls of congress. the next two years are about austerity for the republican party. that would be really tough to run for president trying to partially privatize medicare and cut domestic spending across the board. >> quickly, paul ryan, does he have what it takes
. if republicans had time to this issue and said, you know, were not going to raise the debt ceiling unless at a certain amount of cuts, they would've caved in the end, would've been disastrous, much like what the fiscal cliff and i think boehner and right together did a very nice job convincing republicans that you can't govern from the house, but sure to be careful about getting into these high-profile, high-stakes, last-minute negotiations with the president. it worked in the white house, i worked in three administrations. they have a tremendous institutional at vantage in this kind of bias. i think what republicans have to do is avoid these sites come at the straps the democrats and president obama are laying, provide an alternative to passing legislation, just to show them this is how we recover if we have the powers of the presidency and the senate and to be careful and frankly the rougher edges republicans sometimes have. >> host: some republicans aren't happy sr is moving ahead. >> guest: i think if they had gone ahead, it would have been cataclysmic for the republican party. i say
with this sequester, it was a total disaster for them. then they decide not to fight on the debt ceiling and they need to move the attention on to something else. say they do have leverage elsewhere. so they have chosen sequester and put up a very brave face on it. it's possible they could convince themselves to let it actually happen but the idea that they get some sort of significant political gain from it, these are cuts they hated and they hated in large part because they hurt things they care about. so to permit the sequester to go forward on that kind of rationale is not a political win, not a policy win. everybody is losing. >> the "new york times" op-ed says more than a million jobs are on the line if this deal isn't made. a quote saying the losses will soon spread as contracts to states and cities are cut, education and police grants are cut, and payments to medicare providers are cut, even the aid just approved to victims of hurricane sandy will fall under the sequester's act. americans are about to find out what happens when an entire political party demands deficit reduction at all costs b
on the fiscal cliff, pushed back the debt ceiling issue so that they can breathe a little bit and try and move away from just these fiscal issues. now on the horizon there are lots of house republicans, particularly younger ones, who say let's cut the defense budget, let those automatic spending cuts take place, and there are lots of senior republicans who say, not so fast. so that's going to be a problem within the republican party as we look ahead. >> where does karl rove and his new super pac fit into that? >> did you ever think republicans would call him a rhino, republican in name only. here you go. i've always thought of karl rove as a conservative. what's going on is his pac has said, you know what, we are tired of someone associated with his pac said to me, quote, the novelty of losing elections has worn off, and what they've decided to do is to start putting their money in primaries. they want to vet republican primary candidates so that by the time they get to the general election they believe they have qualified vetted candidates who can actually win. conservatives are saying, this
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)